Rubio Smacked Back into Line on Denial

May 12, 2014

In an apparently brief nod to reality, last week, Senator Marco Rubio told CNN he “understands there is a vast consensus”  among mainstream scientists on climate change, not that he was going to do anything about it.  Apparently that was dangerously close to acknowledging reality for the Senator’s base.
Days later, in New Hampshire, and no doubt having been re-oriented to the need for absolute climate denial in facing the Tea Party heavy audience of primary voters, Rubio was clearly back on the anti-science reservation.  The intimidating power of the no-nothing GOP base was on display.

23 Responses to “Rubio Smacked Back into Line on Denial”


  1. This is great news, the denialists must be put on the record and held accountable.

    The question should be…

    Do you believe Co2 is a heat trapping greenhouse gas?

    He is a very young man. When he was born global atmospheric Co2 was 325ppm when he graduated high school global atmospheric Co2 was 350ppm. Today it’s 400ppm.

    Thats a 23% increase in his little short lifetime.

    Political suicide.

    • Earl Mardle Says:

      There’s your problem right there. It SHOULD be political suicide, like claiming Jesus was gay, or black, or Jewish.

      But. It. Isn’t.

      Rubio is looking after himself in a climate (pun intended) where the money and influence is in the hands of idiots and criminals. Half admitting that its a reality, THAT was political suicide.

      See what I did there?

    • andrewfez Says:

      Wish it were a scarlet letter, but all the tobacco shill politicians are still running strong…

      • andrewfez Says:

        …and just 6 years after the housing bubble partially collapsed in Los Angeles everyone’s got the fever again: 1,200 sqft. shacks from the 1950’s in middle class neighborhoods selling for $550,000. People ’round here, ain’t big learners….

  2. Stu Says:

    I apologize in advance for the double posting…I should have put my comment here.

    Satirist Andy Borowitz has this to say in his New Yorker article…

    “GOP Rivals Question Rubio’s Ignorance Credentials”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/05/gop-rivals-question-rubios-ignorance-credentials.html

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Borowitz speaks truth about ignorance being an important attribute for Repugnant candidates. Remember Queen Michelle and Sarah?

      The GOP candidates are again in a “race to the bottom”. BTW, Rubio just said in an interview that he is “ready to be president”. How nice!


      • Professor Rubio for President! Marco has clearly earned this year’s James Inhofe honorary doctorate in climate science.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          LOL He’s toast. You can cross him off the list right now, and I’m sure he will shoot off more toes as he tries to pander his way back on. He is All Hat, NO Cattle, as they say in TX.


  3. […] In an apparently brief nod to reality, last week, Senator Marco Rubio told CNN he "understands there is a vast consensus" among mainstream scientists on climate change, not that he was going to do…  […]

  4. jimbills Says:

    What’s happening is that these dunderheads are competing against each other for the GOP nomination. To do so, they have to spout far right views to appeal to the base.

    It will have a rebound effect in the general election, though, as the President is usually elected by the middle. From a Democrat perspective, it should be ‘Bring on the crazy!’, because it will make it tougher and tougher for a GOP candidate to get elected in the general.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Yep, it’s deja vu all over again—appealing to the ever-shrinking “base”. Did they learn nothing from 2012?

      If I were a Democratic campaign strategist, I couldn’t wish for more. Bring on the crazy indeed!

      • jimbills Says:

        The GOP version of learning from their mistakes is to double down.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          If that’s so, then E-Pot and Omno must be Republicans (?)

          • jimbills Says:

            Both are conservative politically, yes. I’m not sure they’d identify as Republican, though. I’m liberal politically but don’t self-identify as Democrat.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I was thinking more in the general sense of “learning from one’s mistakes by doubling down on them” rather than strictly politically. They both tend to do that.

          • jimbills Says:

            Yeah, I know I’m avoiding the humor there, but I don’t have a stomach for personal sniping.

            But this subject is actually very interesting. Here are some links:
            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

          • jimbills Says:

            http://www.salon.com/2013/09/15/inside_the_conservative_brain_what_explains_their_wiring/

            What we’re finding out is that people are wired differently. A conservative is fundamentally different than a liberal in their thought processes. A fear of change will cause a conservative to first look at taking a tougher line to their same message (double down) before they look at a totally new and different approach.

            A liberal doesn’t have that. They embrace change more readily, so they don’t have those inner filters that exist in a conservative.

            There are advantages, however, to each approach. I’m on the line of thinking that we’re made in both categories to bring stability to a group while maintaining adaptability. If we were purely conservative, we wouldn’t adapt to changes and we’d die off. If we were purely liberal, we’d change too often, even when it isn’t needed, and we’d die off. For that reason, I don’t really look down on conservatives, even though they are deeply, deeply frustrating to me personally.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You’ve demonstrated a glibly stated but rather simplistic understanding of the biology involved in this string of comments. You need to go a bit beyond the popular treatments in Salon, SciAm, and Psych Today. There has been much study in the field of political neuroscience in recent years, much of it probably brought on by the fact that so many conservatives seem to have lost their minds. Scientists DO tend to be more “liberal”, open-minded, and dependent on rational analysis of fact than most conservatives, as are most academics.

            I have pushed the book The Republican Brain by Chris Mooney on many occasions on Crock. It is a book length but “popular” in the sense that you don’t need advanced degrees in biology or psychology to understand it. HAVE YOU READ IT? I’d be glad to discuss it page by page with you. The subject IS INCREDIBLY interesting. Learn about the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex, the “guiding light” part of the brain for liberals—-houses are “wired” according to some simple laws of physics but the human brain is very, very much more complicated than that.

            PS Your use of the terms “mindset”, “filters”, and “dominant and recessive” ranges from the imprecise and unscientific to the misleading, even though what you said in the last paragraphs of both your 3:37 and 3:44 comments IS perceptive and will be well received at cocktail parties (provided you’re not STS with the biology or psychology profs).

            PPS A few people both seek and deserve “personal sniping”, because they crave attention and seek it by making idiotic and/or provocative statements. You do them and the Crock community a disservice by climbing up on your high horse and sniffing in disdain at those who “snipe”. Protect the community and help the trolls satisfy their needs by (occasionally) feeding them.

          • jimbills Says:

            Also, when viewed in that context, the AGW ‘debate’ is really a war of these two differing and conflicting mindsets. The liberal mindset is insisting that change is necessary, and conservative mindset is insisting that it is not.

            I generally think the conservative mindset is a dominant trait, and the liberal mindset is the recessive. We don’t need to change all that often, but when we need to change, we need to change. The recessives are telling the dominants that the time is now, and they don’t want to hear it.

          • jimbills Says:

            No, I haven’t read Mooney’s book yet, although I suspect it has many of the same observations as the three articles I linked.

            The last observations about group composition of liberal and conservative subgroups are mine alone. I haven’t read that anywhere, and no, I’m not a trained psychologist, so I don’t speak the jargon.

            Your comment is aggressive, and that’s fine, I deserve some of that. But a trick we play on ourselves is to reject the message by scouring the messenger for weaknesses. The fact that I linked ‘popular’ articles instead of actual studies (although those articles link to studies) and that I don’t have a PhD in Psychology or Neuroscience can be easy reasons for dismissing what I said.

            Do you find actual holes in anything I wrote besides my own personal characteristics and that I linked ‘popular’ sources? That would be more helpful to me. Thanks.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I find nothing wrong with your “personal characteristics”. And I did not “scour” you for “weaknesses”. Nor do I dismiss what you said. I think you just got a bit “overexuberant” with your new-found knowledge. IMO, you are one of the better commenters on Crock and I often agree with you. Your comments are unfailingly sensible, informed, and often “fun”.

            There is nothing wrong with citing “popular” sources, PROVIDED you don’t do so to bolster and lend credence to statements that may be “imprecise, unscientific, and worse, misleading”. Crockers are an educated bunch and have a lot of knowledge, but many do not explore the links, and will believe what they hear from commenters they have confidence in.

            I don’t have a PhD in psych or neuroscience either, but I do have enough training and have done enough study in those areas that what you said prompted my response. If I had no such background, I likely would have said to myself “jimbills is an OK guy, and he usually knows what he’s talking about” and accepted it even though it IS imprecise and misleading.

            And I object to the characterization of proper terminology as “jargon”—-jargon is slang, technical terms in technical fields have precise meanings—-scientists do not make up their own personal words for use in their fields

            You need to read Mooney’s book. Since you think this whole topic is very interesting, I’m sure you will enjoy it and learn much from it. In addition to the copy that sits on my shelf, I have purchased a couple for others as gifts. Those I gave it to had “suspicions” about what he would say and were surprised when they read it and got the complete picture. He goes well beyond what your three links said.

            “Actual holes”? I DID say that what you said was perceptive at the cocktail party level, but it would not pass muster with the profs. Good perceptions, if a bit confused, and the profs would have enjoyed straightening you out.

            “Filters” has more implications than you let on, and the way you stated it made it seem that only conservatives had them. Everyone has them, and they are more commonly called “perceptual screens”—-they work for both inbound and outbound messages and are both conscious and unconscious. Look up Johari Windows also.

            The “fundamentally different” and “purely conservative and purely liberal” business is both too extreme and an oversimplification.

            Although there gas been some evidence for inheritance discovered in political neuroscience studies, you have misused “dominant”, “recessive”, and “mindset”. In biology, a dominant trait (gene) ALWAYS “covers” a recessive, so liberalism would never appear. A mindset is a way of thinking that can be situational, in this case political—-what you said is sort of a mixed metaphor.

            And “aggressive”? Charles Zeller calls me “combative”, which is probably closer to the truth. Old linebacker, USMC, professional sheepdog and all that—hard to turn off.

          • jimbills Says:

            Alright, thanks.

            Some clarifications:

            I know all people have ‘filters’ (perceptual screens). I didn’t mean to imply only conservatives have them – just that conservatives are more likely to search for familiar solutions (i.e. double down) before searching for new solutions. Liberals can exhibit the same particular behavior, but not as often, largely because they aren’t as squeamish about unfamiliar territory. But liberals also have other (though different) weaknesses.

            Okay, I’ll read Mooney’s book. It’s been on my list for a while, but there’s only so much one can do.

            Of course the “pure liberal” and “pure conservative” exercise was an oversimplification. It was simply speculation on my part – not science. I thought the “I’m on the line of thinking” was an indicator of that, but apologies if I was unclear.

            The ‘terminology’ (instead of ‘jargon’, fine) that I used is quite definitely imprecise. I’m trying to communicate more complex thoughts in language that I know. I agree I’d be ripped to shreds by a professor, although I’d really much rather know how my thoughts are actually wrong as opposed to the terminology usage.

            The ‘dominant’ and ‘recessive’ stuff is of course my terminology. I’m using it in terms of groups instead of individuals. A certain percentage of populations is gay. Why is that? A certain percentage is conservative, a certain percentage liberal, in all populations and at all times. Why is that? Is it possible that it’s an evolved trait to ensure the survival of a group (instead of just survival of an individual)?

            Of course we’re all very limited in our knowledge. I’m trying to pull together many different avenues of thought instead of focusing on just one area. I’m getting the gist of several fields instead of mastering one. I can’t hang with many of the people here on actual climate science. I understand the basics, and I look for flaws in thinking in reasoning to discern greater truths.

            Best to you. Never eff with a Marine. Ha ha.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Please don’t think I’m attacking you here. You ARE thinking, and toward positive ends, and that can’t be faulted.

            You are still missing the boat on the “terminology-jargon-slang” thing. Words have meaning, often very precise, but at other times ambiguous. There is very little imprecision in the language of math and science, and if you use the wrong words to express “complex thoughts” there, you will confuse those who DO understand their proper meaning, and mislead those who don’t and may be relying on you to give them good info. If you use the wrong words to express thoughts, then the thoughts by definition are wrong, or at least greatly compromised.

            A very simplistic example. You walk around announcing “The sky is green” because you don’t know the proper names for colors, particularly things that appear “blue”. Those of us who understand human vision, the spectrum of visible light, and the laws of refraction, absorption, and transmission of light will think you either a fool, ignorant of science, or just misinformed. People who know less than you but have confidence in you and accept your idea will now walk around calling the sky “green”. We can all start doing that—making up new meanings for words—-but as I said, science works far better (and math only works period) if we all use the same definitions.

            Anyone who ever took HS biology and paid attention during the part on genetics has “dominant” and “recessive” rattling around in the back of their brain. You simply can NOT use those words the way you have yet again. They occur within an individual when their genes are expressed. What you are talking about with “groups” comes under the heading of evolution and statistical population genetics. The word “dominant” can be used to mean “most prevalent” or most obvious” there, but “recessive” has no place there. And “mindsets” are a psychological phenomenon that is pretty far removed from gene expression.

            Re: effing with Marines, there is a saying to the effect that one can have “No better friend and no worse enemy than a U.S. Marine”. That is part of our Code and is absolute truth. I am your friend.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: